Wednesday, 7 August 2013

Debt

THE DEBT IS PAID

There is an non Calvinist/Arminian argument that runs like this: A man is in great debt and so in danger of going to the Debtor's prison. Another pays his debt in full - but the man thus relieved refuses to believe it. All the time, he continues to worry himself well nigh into the grave. Yet, at the same time, his great debt has been paid already.

THE ARGUMENT CONTINUES: So with every last sinner ever born, including total reprobates in Hell, like Cain, Esau, Pharaoh, Haman, Judas etc. Christ paid their debt in full when He made atonement upon the Cross, but many sinners refuse to believe it.

BUT NOW WHAT? Let's think about the creditor. Will he employ the services of a debt collector because he sees the anxious sinner worrying every day? I say not. Within the obvious limitations of the illustration, what does he care about the feelings of the one whose debt is now paid? He is a creditor, not a social worker. The debt is paid and therefore (from that point of view) he is happy. The debt is paid and so he cannot go to the court and seek to have the one formerly in debt committed to a debtor's prison. The case would never be heard if the court clerk is doing his duty.

"Is the debt paid?"

"Yes, My Lord."

"Well, what are you doing here?"

"I'm not too sure, My Lord..."

"Case Dismissed"

No debt. No debt collector. No court. No prison. And (to apply it to our evangelical theology) No Hell.

32 comments:

The post is not flawed. That is why those who reject particular redemption use the phrase - God has made salvation POSSIBLE for all. They must weaken the effect of Christ's suffering as by itself it doesn't secure anyone's salvation and yet they will deny that is what they do.

They insist that unregenerate man is only 'mostly dead' thus raising man at the same time they are lowering Christ, and all the while insisting that they are doing neither.

This makes a good point. In the West (elsewhere too?) we have something in our courts whereby you cannot be tried twice for the same crime. If this is true in sinful human courts, how much more God's? So to say that someone whose debt is already paid must then suffer eternally for it makes absolutely no sense.

The other truth that is related to this is the teaching of the "cup" which Jesus Christ drank. He shrank from drinking the cup and asks the Lord if it may be taken from Him. The idea that this is just shrinking from death is not the whole picture. If you do a word search on the word cup in both the testaments, you find that it refers to God's wrath. Jesus drank the cup of divine wrath for the sinners He came to save. How could it be possible that He drank the cup of divine wrath and yet there are still some who go to hell to suffer for it as well?

And so you get into the whole purpose for Christ's death in the first place, and also the extent of it. This is a huge subject, as are so many scriptural truths.

Thanks for your comments. I agree with you both. I know I'll hardly qualify for "Blog of the Year" but is it significant that there is no non Calvinist/Arminian response to this post? Perhaps not. OTOH: Perhaps so. Again, is this post flawed? If so - where?

I normally try to avoid analogies, but I know you're serious when you ask if I see any flaws so I'll assume the advocates role on this one. ;-)

What is the debt? Who is the creditor and, most importantly, who is the one who pays the debt. Is “no hell” the purpose for him paying the debt? Is the debt forgiveness a once and for all deal or will the debtor need to come back for more?

The debt is our sins against God i.e. their damning guiltThe creditor is God HimselfThe Debt payer is Christ who made atonement for our sinsSalvation is much more than “No Hell” but includes itJustification is “a once for all deal” (as you put it) Although the justified one is encouraged to come again and again to seek forgiveness (as in the Lord’s Prayer) yet it is not to be justified which is total and 100% at the point of believing.

These things being so, I am asking how can a man whose debt has been paid in full for each and every sinner (as our Non Calvinist friends assure us) if many of them still end up in the debtor’s prison house i.e. Hell? If the debt was paid, then there is no honest court in the land going to convict. The one relieved of the debt can still cry himself to sleep every night with anxiety, but (again) the ledger is there to read. “Paid in Full” means that the cell remains empty.

Obviously the illustration has its limitations. I can see a theological question arise here. Is one relieved of his debt whether he acknowledges it or not? IOW Are the elect (for whom Christ died) forgiven even if they never repent and believe the gospel?

Only if we disconnect the work of the Son of God on the Cross from the saving work of the Spirit of God in the heart. This is something which the Bible does not do. Christ didn’t come to make salvation possible, as one of the other friends above points out. He came to actually save His people from their sins and raise them up at the last day (Conflation of Matt 1:21/John 6) Thus He shall see the travail of His soul and be satisfied when He by His knowledge, shall justify many (Isaiah 53)

You lose me there with that one. If a man did not sin, then he would not be in Hell. Hell is the wage of sin (Romans 6:23) If a man is justified, then he is accounted as if he had never sinned i.e. he is accounted as righteous, and therefore no Hell. I can't see any problem with that.

In God's accounts, there is no sin for the justified soul. He is "accepted in the Beloved" (Eph 1:6) i.e. Christ. Therefore for him, there is no hell because (going back to the original article) the debt has been paid in full. If the debt is paid, then there is no Hell, b/c there is condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1) - the believer no longer condemned (John 5:24)& therefore no longer abiding under the wrath of God (John 3:36)

Really is simple Evangelical theology is it not? ;o)

Regards,

P/s I hope, for the sake of your wife, that the "few hours" isn't all spent in the dentist's chair...

The Christian was chosen in Christ from before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4) Experimentally, the sinner is found "accepted in Christ" upon that act of saving faith which flows from his having been chosen in Christ.

You're up early! Surely this conversation didn't keep you awake all night? ;o)

Not sure why you left the blank in your formula above. The debt was actually paid on Calvary's Cross. This had been planned in the decree of God from eternity past. It's principle was applied to the OT believers i.e. those forgiven before Calvary. Experimentally, the application of the paid debt is not applied to the believer until the moment he believes. Until then, He is still a child of wrath even as others, although the decree of God planned that there would be a day and a hour when this would be cease to be i.e. when he repents and believes the gospel.

I assume that you are in complete agreement with me so far and are just looking someone to articulate it all for you ;o)

I can say we agree in Spirit! ;-) BTW I'm early to bed most nights too.

So would the Calvinist then agree that there are those whose debt has been paid in full and yet refuse to believe it? It seems the distinction between the Calvinist and the non-Calvinist/Arminian concerns the extent of debt payment and the eventual outcome of those whose debt has been paid. Am I correct thus far?

You are correct thus far. Calvinism believes that all for whom the debt is paid will come to believe it. Non Calvinism/Arminianism disagree and believe that millions of those debt has been paid on the Cross will never believe it and go to Hell. The article asks on what basis? The unbelief of the poor man in the illustration cannot make void the fact that his debt is paid. The Creditor isn't going to send in the debt collectors or go to court. He will not see the inside of a debtor's prison. There is no case. The debt is paid, whether he dances a jig - no inferences please ;o) - or weeps himself to sleep every night until he dies.

Obviously (as said before) there are limitations to the illustration. We are not examining the subjective end of things here - the faith of the sinner - but the objective i.e. what Christ actually did on the Cross.

Then I think you've answered your question. The flaw in the post is the obvious limitation of the illustration.

Objectively Christ is the propitiation for, not only our sins, but the sins of the whole world (1st John 2:2) and subjectively the redeemer of whosoever believes in Him (John 3ff). Objectively His righteousness is upon all men unto justification of life (Romans 5:18), but subjectively life is given to those who believe in Him.

Here again the limitations of the illustration precludes any further consideration.

I think the key for my perspective is the object of Christ' atonement. If the object is to get “no hell” for men then I would agree your perspective makes perfect sense. From my perspective the object of His atonement was to satisfy the will of the Father.

I think Romans 5 fully explains both the objective and subjective aspect of Christ' obedience. Objectively all men were brought under condemnation through Adam but subjectively not all men are condemned. Objectively by Christ' righteousness the free gift is upon all men unto justification of life but subjectively not all men will have life.

Then was Christ's work largely potential rather than actual i.e. (as pointed out by Mr McKillop above) is it more what was on offer rather than what was actually achieved? If the sins of the reprobate was actually atoned for, then the law is satisfied and he can go free.

Brother you well know I consider it a great honor and privilege to discuss these things with you.

Since I consider that Christ' work was to do the will of the Father then I see it is as fully complete and perfectly accomplished. He did not potentially fulfill the will of the Father. He fully accomplished it. With respect to potentiality and sin, I think we both agree there is only one sin that cannot be forgiven.

It is true that there is only one sin that cannot ever be forgiven, but I am unaware of anywhere in Scripture where God forgives all the other sins, only to leave one remaining. It is as murderers, fornicators etc., (specific sins) that the unpardoned wicked cannot enter the kingdom God (1 Corinthians 6:9) For these things (individual unpardoned sins) comes the wrath of God etc (Colossians 3:5)

Another approach, would Jesus atone for sins that He knew beforehand would never be repented of?

I think we agree with regard to the unpardonable sin. I understand that to be the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit Who testifies concerning Christ.

I am honestly afraid to judge the righteousness of God. If pressed I would say I could understand that if God wanted to demonstrate His righteousness in His providence for all His creation then yes, but I am still only persuaded that Christ did the will of the Father.

It has been a good discussion. I appreciate your stating of your views. maybe time to move on, though feel free to drop us i.e. any one who bothers reading this blog ;o) a comment if and when the notion takes you.

Thanks so much for the reply. I am grateful that my position appears theoretical. I would never want my theological position to be considered God's Word but I strive to insure that it's grounded in the Scripture. I think it's critical for us all to be able to make the distinction between “thus saith the Lord” and “my understanding is”.

If we assume an anthropological position, as I intimated to Colin previously, and frame the Atonement from the perspective that it's all about “my salvation” then it's easy to assume that the Atonement need only be limited to those who are saved. If, however, we perceive that the Atonement is a divine transaction between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit having enormous consequence on all things then we can remain open to see those things in the Scripture.

Yes I absolutely agree that we ought to use all of scripture, not our own salvation experience to determine what the Bible teaches about salvation. We also do not want to use our theoretical notions to determine truth, but scripture alone.

I also wholeheartedly agree that The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were all involved in a divine transaction to bring salvation to sinners.

Please forgive me. I read numerous questions that I perceived as pointing to a specific “theme” concerning the atonement and it was that theme to which I attempted to reply. I'm not sure I could properly address all of your questions in a blog reply.

If your specific question is “Did Christ die for my sin?” then my answer is a resounding yes as well as for mine and for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).

Sorry for the delay in posting "Anon's" 13th August reply. I was away from my computer for a few days. I think, "Anon" (to be fair to Kc and myself) that we would need a name at this stage. It is one thing passing comment on the way past, but a prolonged debate is another. It is good to be able to identify whom we are speaking with here. Thanks to you both for continuing on the discussion. I appreciate your time and efforts.